GilfordGrok

..

A petition with 65 signatures has been delivered to the Selectmen's office, effectively stopping their plan for a sweetheart deal with the non-profit Village Knolls group-- at least until the voters have their say at a special Town Meeting.

Here is the language of the petition:

As provided in RSA 41:14-a, and pursuant to RSA 39:3, we the undersigned registered voters of the Town of Gilford request the Board of Selectmen call a special Town Meeting to vote on “the proposed sale” of Town-owned land on 43 Potter Hill Road. We believe that the land must be sold as quickly as possible, without any special conditions favoring specific organizations, to a qualified buyer that submits the highest sealed bid offer.

The opposition consists of two camps: Those who don't wish to promote more tax-free or tax exempt subsets of citizens here in Gilford-- folks that won't feel the full impact of spending decisions made on voting day; and those that believe the village is already crowded enough in the area occupied by the parcel in question, and are concerned about the heavy impact of another multi-unit development.

Now we wait for the Selectmen to schedule the meeting. Waiting until the next annual meeting is NOT an option, by the way...

Posted by Doug at 03:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To all the letter writers that have missed the point on the petition to stop the sale of the Potter Hill Road property:

It's NOT about being against the seniors!

Heck, how many live in my neighborhood?

It's about a town facilitating a group of people that will live property tax free within a system of government funded by those same taxes-- and that's NOT FAIR!!!!!

Don't forget, for every citizen granted this special right, the rest of us have to take up the slack.

And here's the other problem: These people that don't pay property taxes like the rest of us will still get the right to vote on spending matters before the town. As I said here on this blog a while back, this seems to be a way for Gilford's big spenders to do an end-run around SB2. Why would people that don't pay taxes ever feel the need to say NO?

Enough is enough.

Are we to the point now here in Gilford that, if we follow the recent logic put forth by one of our Selectmen, we consider family homes somehow bad, and group-type communal homes GOOD? I don't think so. If I want that, I'll move to Red China or the Former Soviet Union.

Additionally, I don't feel in any way "obligated" to help people create systems by which certain classes of Gilford residents will benefit at the expense of others.

The only way I could ever accept more of these developments here in our town is if those that live in them are NOT allowed to vote on town and school matters. And since that can't happen, then the next best thing is to simply prevent them from creating any more tax havens.

In this case, where the town owns the land, it seems as though it can be stopped. Please join me in signing Terry's petition.

NO TAXPAYER-FUNDED TAX-FREE LIVING IN GILFORD. NO WAY!!!!

Posted by Doug at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last night I had the privilege to address the Gilford Selectmen on how Gilford's website could be used to enhance the Town's image of being Open and Transparent by putting more information on its website.  I thank them very much!

The emphasis was on making more information available online.  The actual presentation can be seen here (a PowerPoint file).  If you take the time to read it, feel free to contact me if you have any questions!
 

Be sure to go to the Links page and look at the Check Register examples! 

I also want to add:

• Thanks to Gus for his willingness to look into this further.
• My apologies (again!) to Sandy for missing her postings of the Agendas - that has been adjusted at the Sunshine Review site for Gilford!
  

Posted by Skip at 09:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

An unqualified YES to that! 

From the aspect of making it harder to violate the RTK law upon chance encounters to spreading the workload around to allowing for more participation by the citizenry - what's the down side?

And yes, voting on the idea in November (hey, the cost of having the election is already there) is a good one, setting the stage for voting in March.

Go for it! 

Posted by Skip at 09:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To the Editor:

          The agenda for the Gilford Selectmen’s meeting today (March 26) includes, under “Appointments”, the item “Alice Boucher – Petition”.   I haven’t seen the petition, but I gather that it asks the selectmen to re-instate Town Administrator Juris, to hold a public hearing on the subject, or both.   Perhaps they should hold a public hearing, but it should be solely for the purpose of allowing citizens to speak on the record on the subject.   The selectmen should not reverse their decision and should not make any attempt to explain it.

          The Town Administrator (“Administrative Assistant” would be a better title) is not like a department head, with a well-defined job that lends itself to objective performance evaluation.   Rather, he or she is the alter ego for the Selectmen when they are not in session, which of course is most of the time.   The Selectmen have full authority and responsibility for whatever happens.   It is absolutely essential that a majority of the Selectmen have full and complete confidence in the Administrator and comfort in their relationship with him, both objectively and subjectively.   This is what serving “at the pleasure of the Selectmen” means.   Without it, the person in question must go.   There should be no explanation because the reason may be simply a clash of personalities with no fault involved, no malfeasance or misfeasance.   No shortcoming need be proven, or even suggested.   The Selectmen are our elected representatives, subject to removal by not being re-elected, and they must be free to choose and to un-choose their principal agent.  

Richard H. Campbell
Gilford

[GilfordGrok welcomes all submissions for consideration. Heck-- that means less work for us!]

Posted by Doug at 05:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On the Saturday radio program, Skip, former Laconia Mayor Tom Tardif, and I discussed the termination of the Gilford Town Administrator and Right to Know law questions. We answer Bill McLean's accusation of us not applying the same level of scrutiny to the BOS as we do to others.

Click here to download the podcast, or use the handy player below. It runs just under 15 minutes long.

powered by ODEO

We will be in attendence at Wednesday's Board Of Selectmen meeting at 3 pm to show our support for them.

Posted by Doug at 06:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On Friday, Doug and Bill McLean discussed the recent Town Administrator termination and the Selectmen's next move. As he did in his recent letter, Bill asked why Skip and I are somehow treating allegations of RTK law violations differently than we might in other circumstances. I say we're not-- there's just nothing to any of them.

Click here to download the podcast from WEZS' "Straight Talk with Bill McLean" recorded March 21st-- or use the handy player below to listen:

powered by ODEO

[H/T Steve for audio]

Posted by Doug at 08:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Former Selectboard Chair Boucher (GG2 file photo)

There can only be one explanation for the recent behavior of former Selectman Boucher. My problem is that there are two apparent choices. Either she is woefully ignorant of the Right-to-Know laws, or is knowingly looking to bait our present selectmen into committing violations of them. If you are like me, the quandary is that when considering who we're talking about here, both ignorance and deceit are equally believable. 

Let me explain.

The Right-to-Know (RTK) law bars a quorum of Selectmen, in our case, two, from conducting public business outside of the confines of a properly noticed public meeting. Recalling that both her and the former Town Administrator imply without specifics that the other two Selectmen were somehow  violating the RTK, you can watch the video of the March 12 meeting where Selectman Boucher admonishes Selectman Grant for not calling her about this beforehand. HELLO? Attention Ms. Boucher: This would have violated the RTK. Reasonable people might conclude that if the law was in fact violated, perhaps it was Selectman Boucher leading the way.

Now, according to letters in the papers, we find that former Selectman Boucher, citing her years of "experience" (some might question whether "led down the primrose path" counts as such, but I digress...), is leading a petition drive that asks demands

"the selectmen give answers on why Evans Juris was fired with no explanation."

Silly Ms. Boucher. She knows that first of all, their counsul has advised them NOT to comment. This is normal for these sorts of things. Secondly, much like it is out here in the "real world," employers do NOT blab about the reasons an employee has been dismissed. This isn't legal, as far as I know. Why, businesses know that when it comes to giving information about a former employee to a prospective employer, you NEVER offer negative information, lest you get in trouble. In addition to those constraints, the selectmen face the added conditions of RTK requirements governing their every move. The very act of publicly stating a reason could violate that  law. Again I ask, is former Selectman Boucher hopelessly clueless when it comes to this, or is she simply seeking to lay out a trap for the present board?

Ms. Boucher's letter, in addition to "demands" for "answers" the Selectmen cannot legally give, again follows on a familiar theme as noted above when she writes

"Both Selectman Grant and Selectman Benavides should have spoken to me before hand to get my point of view as to how this could all have been dealt with professionally and not in public like it was done.

Once again, former Selectman Boucher advocates for the violation of the RTK law with this statement. Twice, as a matter of fact. First by looking to communicate outside the confines of a public meeting, and again by suggesting it not be done in public, despite the request of the employee in question, as was his right. Again I ask-- Is this ignorance, or deceit?

Boucher's letter closes by lamenting the "sad situation for our town to be going through." I actually agree with her on this one. Unfortunately, it is the continued actions that SHE has engaged upon that are causing this to drag on. While she might claim to want what's best for the town, her actions are in all actuality what's best for one person and one person only: the terminated Town Administrator. If former Selectman Boucher actually wanted what's best for our town, the she would simply

and just go away. Enough, already!

.

Posted by Doug at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Board of Selectmen met Monday afternoon at 4:30pm following the swearing-in of new member Kevin Hayes. The agenda consisted of discussion and prep work for the upcoming March 24 DES public hearing on the Liberty Hill cleanup question. They will be seeking the agenda from DES and will ask about the possibility of moving the event to the school due to expected (encouraged) crowd size.

They also talked about the need for a consultant or environmental lawyer at this point, and whether anybody needs to look over DES' shoulder on the cleanup, or is DES the certifying agent.

Lastly, acting Town Administrator Shackett asked that the Board schedule time to discuss her duties and compenstaion. Gus asked to have the salary ranges of the positions made available to them. They agreed to take up the matter at the next meeting.

With no other business, the meeting adjourned around 40 minutes after it began. The atmosphere was quite orderly, professional, and businesslike. I thought that the chemistry between Selectmen Grant, Benavides, and Hayes along with acting Town Administrator Shackett seemed rather cordial and relaxed. Everybody was very well prepared.

I am upbeat about the prospects for achievement and progress from this point forward. The next regular meeting of the Selectmen is on March 26 at 3:00pm. Between now and then, if you have any thoughts about how to approach the Town Administrator/ Finance Director positions, or something that should be considered in the job description or contract, send it in. The Selectmen need to hear from people with their thoughts and ideas. Who knows-- maybe there's a better way that just hasn't been thought of yet...

Oh, and at that same meeting, the Chair will be elected, along with other positions, and committee assignments. You know-- it almost is starting to feel a little more like spring here in Gilford...

Posted by Doug at 07:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ronnie Bean forwards the following. I've got to say that this is fairly representative of what I'm hearing from people around town.

I would like to applaud Connie Grant and Gus Benavides for the courage they displayed in the latest Selectmens meeting. At the many meetings I’ve attended, I have never witnessed selectmen Benavides conduct to be anything but professional, never mind "Hostile." I have nothing against Evans Juris personally, but he is known for having an intimidating nature. I think he took that to the next level with his letter that he put out just prior to the town elections. The timing of his letter was clearly an intentional manipulation of the election process.

Juris mentioned that if John Goodhue were a town employee he would have been charged with conduct unbecoming a town employee under "Town Policy." Juris IS a town employee, and manipulating the town elections process is without question "conduct unbecoming a town employee."

Juris also mentioned that Benavides may have wanted to run for town tax collector and wanted to "force an issue with her." Juris actually did run for that position against the previous clerk, and claimed he didn’t even really want the position. This seems a bit hypocritical.

Continue reading "This is what I'm hearing..." »

Posted by Doug at 07:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

On the radio program Saturday, Skip, Terry Stewart and I discussed the actions of the Selectmen in terminating the Town Administrator's contract with Evans Juris. We all agreed the Selectmen did the right thing. In talking to folks around town, the feeling is it was none too soon...

Click here to download the podcast, or simply use the handy player below:

powered by ODEO

.

Posted by Doug at 07:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gilford Selectmen terminate Town Administrator

As the fallout from the termination of Town Administrator Juris' employment continues, you should keep several things in mind...

The Town Administrator does, in fact work FOR the Selectmen, not the other way around. The official job description states that the Town Administrator

Serves, at the pleasure of the Board of Selectmen, as the chief administrative officer of the town. Responsible for carrying out the duties and responsibilities assigned by the Board of Selectmen.

It continues to provide that the Administrator

Establishes effective working relationships with all town boards, commissions, committees, and departments.

Last Friday, Town Administrator Juris, in a letter on official town stationary sent to the BOS and released to the media, declared

"a hostile work environment, along with discriminatory and threatening behavior by Selectman Gus Benavides."

After laying out a list of grievances, many of which appear to be rather petty and of the nature of what reasonable people would think "go with the territory," the Town Administrator's letter thus closed:

In the event that the Board wants to resolve the matter, please let me know so that I can attend the meeting with counsel.

Translation: "Have your lawyers contact mine." As one can see, this type of situation completely flies in the face of the job duties listed above, and represents a fatal flaw in the relationship between the Administrator and the BOS. When two parties communicate via lawyers, there is no "effective working relationship."

Beyond that, the official job description states the Town Administrator

Coordinates and administers all Town legal matters. Assists Town Counsel with the collection and review of material for preparation in legal matters. Recommends, with the advice and consent of Town Counsel, legal strategies for approval by the Board of Selectmen.

As you can see, because the legal matter exists between the Administrator and the Board, the conflicts of interest are impossible to resolve. This effectively prevents the Administrator from fulfilling his duties to the Selectmen here, too, creating yet another fatal flaw in the relationship.

In this instance, the Board of Selectmen exercised the only option that made any sense when considering what was best for the town, which is their duty. Nobody could possibly claim that in the existing situation, fatally flawed as it was, anything positive could get accomplished. As a citizen and taxpayer, I don't want to see a situation like we had brewing fester and drag on. I pay taxes and expect them to be used to fulfill the duties required of the municipality by law. A nasty and poisoned relationship between our elected representatives and the person charged with operating the town in no way satisfies that mandate.

Section 15 of the Employment Agreement Between the Town of Gilford, NH and the Town Administrator holds

The Town shall defend, save harmless and indemnify the Town Administrator against any tort, professional liability claims, or demands or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of performance of the duties as Town Administrator. The Town will compromise and settle any such claims or suit and pay the amount of any settlement or judgement...

In other words, we, the taxpayers of Gilford, are on the hook to pay the legal expenses of BOTH sides in this matter. How is that beneficial to Gilford?

I openly and publicly wish to thank Selectman Connie Grant for demonstrating clear and strong leadership for a quick resolution in this matter. Together with fellow Selectman Gus Benavides, she showed courage and a sense of responsibility that is rare in today's times. For that, all citizens of Gilford should be both grateful and proud...

Posted by Doug at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The following letter has been obtained by GilfordGrok. We are printing it in its entirety, saving comments for later...

From:  Evans E. Juris, Town Administrator

Re:  Notification of Hostile Work Environment and Discriminatory  Practices

This letter is to officially notify members of the Board of Selectmen that I am advising you that I am declaring a hostile work environment, along with discriminatory and threatening behavior by Selectman Gus Benavides.

It has now become overwhelmingly apparent that from the time he assumed office that his intentions were to bring personal harm to me through the use of his political office.

As this Board is aware, this matter with Selectman Benavides began within the first weeks of him assuming office.  Mr. Benavides asked questions that had been posed by a former Budget Committee member on how cruiser bids had been awarded in the past.  I had no problem with the questions and explained the process to him and the fact that the Board of Selectmen award bids, not the Chief of Police.  I also did state to him, at that time, that his questions were the same as a former Budget Committee member.

In June of 2007, I filed an official complaint with the Board of Selectmen concerning the Chairman of the Gilford Conservation Commission, John Goodhue, relative to his conduct at the June 19, 2007 conservation commission meeting, clearly stating that if Mr. Goodhue, at the time, were a Town employee, he would have been charged under Town Policy with conduct unbecoming a Town employee.

I outlined the matter to the Board of Selectmen because Selectman Benavides had been present at the time and said nothing in defense of the Administration.  What he did was tell Mr. Goodhue that he would report back to him.

The next day Selectman Benavides interviewed the Assistant Town Administrator and me, without mentioning anything about the public accusation Goodhue had made.  I only later found out after it was brought to my attention by the Planning Director, John Ayer, that I probably wanted to listen to the recording of the June 19, 2007 Conservation Commission meeting.

I brought this forward to the Board, asking them to review the matter. Initially Selectmen Benavides stated that he didn’t recall the accusations until the tape of the meeting was played for the Board. The Board of Selectmen was reluctant to do so because of “political fallout”.  After another two weeks of non-action, it became apparent that the Board would not consider any action I agreed to withdraw it so that the “political fallout” wouldn’t take place.  Selectman Benavides was in the forefront not to take action, but to allow him to speak to Mr. Goodhue privately.

Additionally, as the Board of Selectmen is aware, Mr. Goodhue flatly denied making any statements during the June 19, 2007 meeting, when I brought it to his attention, at a meeting in which you and members of the Land Conservation Task Force were present.  It was not until I stated that it was on tape and that the Board of Selectmen had listened to it that he stated “then I apologize”.

In July, after being in office only three months, Mr. Benavides added items to my evaluation concerning interaction with another department and its employees and then denied that he was responsible for them until Selectmen Grant and Boucher corrected him. 

In a meeting on September 26, 2007, I advised the Board of Selectmen that I felt I needed to seek legal counsel because of actions primarily of Selectman Benavides.  At that time, I informed you of his attitude towards Administrative personnel, and more specifically me.

I also raised concerns over Benavides spending over an hour trying to get me to change the evaluation of a female employee.  During that meeting, he repeatedly told me that I did not do a proper evaluation.  I told him repeatedly that I would not change it, that he has not worked with the employee and that he is unaware of the job that she does.  He, in fact, did speak with other Board of Selectmen members by phone about this and they apparently did not agree with him. He then did not sign the authorization for a pay adjustment.

Also, during the September 26, 2007 meeting, in front of all Board of Selectman members, the Assistant Town Administrator and Administrative Secretary, he stated that when he took office that it was the perception that the “Town Administrator” ran the Town and he was going to make sure now that the Board of Selectmen “runs the Town”, not the Town Administrator.

He went on to say “You know, Evans, when you walk into a room”, he referred to me as having a “big, tough cop image”, because you were Chief of Police, people think you’re running the Town.  He referred to me as intimidating.

It was also apparent during the budget process with the Board that when the Conservation Commission Chairman Mr. Goodhue made his presentation that he could offer no explanation on his budget of less than $5000.00, yet we have a Selectman endorsing him because of his knowledge of how the town operates. This is clearly raises a flag.

Then the situation with the Town Clerk/Tax Collector.  The Administration was instructed to provide options.  We did that.  Selectman Benavides was adamant for a review on how to separate the position and cut the salary and/or eliminate the benefits.  He even mentioned that had he known what this position paid that he would have run for it. His intentions were to force an issue with her and to put her in her place.

Continue reading "Breaking News! Town Administrator files formal complaint." »

Posted by Doug at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Hold onto your hats!

Starting Saturday morning at 9 am!

This week is town meeting/election time for many towns in NH. Here in our little slice of Heaven that iis Central NH, we have an exciting and vibrant body politic-- especially in our little town of Gilford. Ever since we adopted SB2, things have only gotten better! Here's the lineup:

.

• We are pleased to announce that four of the five Selectmen candidates will stop by for a quick visit. Dennis Corrigan, John Goodhue, Kevin Hayes, and Dale "Chan" Eddy are all confirmed. This should be exciting.
• Roger F. Moran of Hobe Sound, FL wrote an excellent letter about reducing government spending rather than to raise taxes, which we printed in this post. Wrote Roger:

  A family living frugally can always tighten their belts a notch more during adverse times. There isn't a small business that, squeezed in a recession, cannot cut its overhead. There isn't an international conglomerate which, under pressure, cannot improve its bottom line.

  Only federal, state and local governments seem unable to perform this basic necessity.

See what I mean about all politics being local? What Roger writes is totally applicable here in NH, too.

• Once again, given that it's on the ballot in many towns around us here in Central NH, we'll talk about the benefits of adopting the Official Ballot (SB2) method of voting for local matters. While the opponents are crying to high Heaven, the fact remains that by accepting this change at town and school district meetings, NOTHING REALLY CHANGES except that the final decisions are made in the privacy of a booth with all day voting and the opportunity to vote absentee. Oh, and participation goes way up...

• The Granite State Fair Tax Coalition declined our offer to join us on the show to defend their "anti-taxpayer pledge" warrant article appearing on 88 town warrants, including ours, this year here in the Granite State. As we have noted in prior postings, this is nothing more than a means to demonize our present form of property tax driven government funding system with a new, broad based tax, thus destroying the NH Advantage. VOTE NO!

There you have it! It all starts at 9AM EST Saturday. Tune in if you're in Central NH at NewsTalk 1490AM WEMJ or live on the 'Net here... The best radio (in our humble opinions) anywhere...

Posted by Doug at 08:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Once more, an issue comes up....and gets a "what do we do" treatment. From the Citizen:

The Gilford Board of Selectmen is skirting a fine line around New Hampshire's Right-to-Know law as it considers holding nonpublic sessions to determine whether or not to dismiss members on the facility planning committee.

Over the last 13 months, the FPC has been working toward an addition to the police station that will address the space needs of the department. Just before coming forward with a plan, the selectmen put the brakes on the project and left the committee waiting in the wings.

All ahead - full stop!  Ramp it up, get it going, go to work, slam into the wall!

Lacking any direction or mission moving forward, the steering rests in the hands of the selectmen. Taking a critical look at the committee, selectmen have suggested several adjustments, including a possible reduction in membership.

The board agreed that a direction would have to wait until after the March 11 voting when citizens will decide whether to appropriate $150,000 toward the continuation of the project. However, Selectman Connie Grant wanted to get the membership question resolved.

First shoe drops:

"In going forward, we should talk about members in nonpublic session," said Grant.

"I would not want to say some of the things about the people in public. That shouldn't be public," added Chair Alice Boucher.

Both explained that much of the decision on whether to continue having a specific committee member serve would deal with their personalities and also their conduct on the committee.

After the board suspended the committee's activities just before they were to bring a proposal before the voters, many members were displeased, though few publicly expressed their feelings.

There does seem to have been progress on the plans, but then it seemed to have hit the wall all of a sudden.  And yes, I know that there has been some "complaining" about how the go-no-go decision was made about putting the Police Station on this year's Warrant.

But to start hocking people overboard?  And at this point, with this exchange (and since one of my pet peeves is that the Selectmen continue to have their meetings when employees can be there but most taxpayers cannot), I can only rely on the reporting.

From my view...

Continue reading "Here we go again....making decisions? Right To Know?" »

Posted by Skip at 05:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"I have no agenda," Hayes declared. 

.

However, he suggested that "it appears that decisions are not being made and when they are, it is with a look over the shoulder to the Budget Committtee.

.

"The Budget Committee doesn't run the town," he said.

The Selectmen, in Mr. Hayes' opinion, have spent too much time actually worrying about the impact of their decisions on the taxpayers instead of just getting on with the business of increasing both taxes and spending.

Could it simply be that he's still sore because that body didn't pick him to fill an open seat when he applied two years ago?

Posted by Doug at 09:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Citizen:

Despite earlier indications that it might not even address the issue, selectmen have voted against publishing detailed list of town employee salaries and benefits in the Town Report, as the Budget Committee had urged.

"We believe that putting as much information in the hands of Gilford's citizens about their local government's financial situation is among our most important challenges. An informed public is one that will make appropriate choices and decisions when it comes to making decisions at the annual meeting," Budget Committee Chair Dick Hickok stated in a letter dated Jan. 1.

Yes, I was one of those who voted for the Letter to be sent to the Selectmen.

Benavides acknowledged the issue posed a dilemma, saying the board has to be aware of the balance between the needs of the voters and the needs of the town employees.

The board ultimately voted 2-1 against publishing the employee names and salaries in this year's annual report. Benavides disagreed with the other two members, asserting that while it may be harmful to the employees, the benefit to the voters outweighs that harm.

"The local government is for the people, by the people and the people have a right to know," said Benavides.

Bravo, Gus - Bravo!

Some may believe...

Continue reading "Annual Report - Salary Info nixed by Selectmen" »

Posted by Skip at 10:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I would like to remind everybody that Connie Grant was offering nothing new for the discussion when she was allowed to speak AFTER Skip moved the question. Her input was purely emotion and was nothing substantive in any way, shape or form. The Chairman said that the rules were that we would ONLY consider info we learned from the public hearing. What would have happened if my wife had wanted to speak? Selectman Grant was simply granted special privileges because she is a selectman. The selectmen are already well represented at the table.
. 
Giving Ms. Grant mic time given the point we were at in the meeting,  JUST PRIOR TO A VOTE gave the pro-library big spenders an unfair advantage. The input she gave was that the budget committee was being a stumbling block to what SHE saw as right. This input had no place in our deliberations. I stand by my point of order interruption and wish that the committee as a whole would become more conversant in parlimentary protocols. Calling the question is just that.
. 
Remember, Ms. Grant, while not a member of the committee, tried to particpate in a vote at last Tuesday's meeting by raising her hand (it's all on tape). While some may laugh this off as simple meaningless childsplay, there are some of us out here that take process very seriously. I'm sure if someone like Wayne Snow or Dick Campbell had watched this behavior, it would have caused their eyebrows to raise at the very least. The selectman raising her hand (while the actual selectman member of the committee sat in the audience, further confusing things) during a committee vote seems to me nothing less than an attempt to cajole and intimidate. I make no apologies for my action, and will most likely write about this on the 'Grok. The public's business is serious stuff. The politics are rather intense at times. Unfortunately, some people don't know this. It ain't bean bag!
 
Doug

Posted by Doug at 07:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Citizen:

Gilford Workers to pay towards insurance

Just days away from taking up Gilford's 2008 budget, the Board of Selectmen announced a policy change based on discussions about town employee benefits with the budget committee last year.

By July 1, 2008, all town employees will be contributing to their health insurance costs. Currently non-union town employees hired before July 1, 2004, pay nothing toward their health insurance but, after July 1, they will begin paying 2.5 percent of the total cost.

Huzzahs for the Selectmen and Administration...

From the Sun (not online)

In a statement the Selectmen reaffirmed that the policy with respect to wages and benefits was the perogative of the board, not the Budget Committee, by declaring that "the Board of Selectmen will continue to review their policy concerning wages and benefits on an annual basis".  Grant said that the board would "absolutely not" change its policy on wages and benefits in the course of the budget process.

Town Administrator Evans Juris agree. "I don't see the board moving from the position it has taken," he said.

A stake in the ground....but still, progress...thanks!

Posted by Skip at 08:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Much ado over what?

The latest dust-up over who takes the minutes for the Gilford Budget Committee smacks of a cheap shot.

On Wednesday Chairman Alice Boucher of the Gilford Board of Selectmen told the weekly meeting that the Budget Committee should take responsibility for keeping its own minutes and not rely on the Selectmen's Office secretary to do so. Boucher called the change justified because some on the budget panel had been critical of the way Sandra Bailey was keeping the minutes.

What is puzzling about this affair is that word of any dissatisfaction with Bailey's skills came as news to the other two selectmen and Budget Committee Chairman Dick Hickok.

Moreover, Hickok was clearly caught off-guard by Boucher's announcement. If there was a problem of consequence, why didn't the chairman of the Board of Selectmen pick up the phone and call Hickok to discuss her concerns and possible ways to resolve them?

Boucher's suggestion that the Budget Committee designate one of its own to keep the minutes is ludicrous. Every member of the Budget Committee needs to be able to concentrate on the meaning of what they are hearing, to pose questions and to offer pertinent comments. It is not right that one of the committee members be reduced to being a stenographer — that's not why the voters send them there.

If it ends up that the Selectmen's Office secretary stops taking the minutes, the committee will have to hire someone to do the minute-taking.

Maybe she she just doesn't like the blog folks.... 

Posted by Skip at 09:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

...the taking of the BudComm notes was the last thing that I would have thought would have topped the "to-do" list of a Selectman....especially making it more difficult (Citizen).  Junk cars (Sun) - maybe.  So what will be the next thing?

I've seen Doug at a loss for words only once - this makes twice ("I see no good reason behind this, other than, I don't even know").  Frankly, I studied the report twice - I just don't get it.  She certainly threw Connie and Gus a curve out of no where too.  I bet the stunned look on their faces would have been quite the sight.

Now, the swipe at the blog ("I'm sure some of them take it for their blog anyway.") - sure, I take notes, and will take better notes this year (I hope) but mine are for my purposes only and not to be the official notes.  I'll admit it - I have biases and my notes may well show that.  Whether or not Alice likes this blog (doubtful) or another website (maybe) is immaterial.  What exists, does, and no amount of wishing will make it go away any time soon.  OTHER things might force that issue, but not that.  And setting up live streaming or MP3 recording - hey, that's a part of the normal political life nowadays.

The thing that I thought was strange was her insistence on the fact that the RSAs do not require that the Town provide a transcriptionist or secretary.  True enough.  Yet, if one has to be brought in, there will be an expense in some fashion to the town.  While Sandy may be a payroll expense, I thought that it can be standard practice for "comp time"?  And even if not, either the expense is a payroll or a 1099 one - take your pick.  So while the meeting may get video or audio recorded, an official note taker should still be present. There WILL be a cost to the town (as Dick Hickok has made plain).

I will echo Doug here - c'mon Alice, who are those that are complaining about Sandy's note taking?  I may take my own, but that in no way means that I am dissatisfied with the product that Sandy churns out.  Nor have I EVER heard anywone on the Budget Committee say even the slightest negative thing about the notes.

Or is that statement mere political posturing (yes, I do say, at times, what others will only think)? For by making that statement, Alice has painted ALL of the BudComm with a negative brush in this regard, for who can tell who has said what?

Frankly, I think the whole idea is nuts. 

Oops - just one - before he was elected to the Board.  From his Best Practices document (on which I commented):

More official information about the budget committee proceedings should be available online - including voting records for each member, summaries of department budgets and committee recommendations, and a balanced presentation of any issues that are disputed. Meeting minutes are not enough - as they are lengthy and unfocused.

Now, to be trite, his campaign was all about "tone" and civility.  Guess it could be said he threw a bomb to start this kerfuffle... 

Posted by Skip at 06:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Would you please identify those voices you hear in your head? Thank You.

Boucher added that some of the residents she had spoke with on the topic expressed similar opinions on keeping the committee's focus broad.

Boucher said that she had heard that members of the Budget Committee were critical of the minutes taken by Bailey.

NAME ONE BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBER THAT IS CRITICAL OF THE WORK SANDY BAILEY DID WITH THE OFFICIAL MINUTES. PLEASE ALICE... WE'RE WAITING!!

Posted by Doug at 09:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 05:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Selectman Connie Grant felt the policies were attempting to control behavior which could be a matter of opinion and the standards of enforcement might vary from board to board.

.

"I just see a lot of this as being subjective," said Grant.

Newly elected Selectman Gus Benavides defended having codes of ethics and conduct, stating that, while he saw Grant's point, he feels it is important for the town to lay out a manner of acceptable and ethical behavior for all public employees.

.

"I think it would be important to have teeth to this," said Benavides, furthering his point and advocating for a town adoption of the policy.

[UPDATE]  I have been asked by several friends to withhold such harsh a judgement on Gus until this whole thing fleshes out. I am going to chat with him and get the real state of his take on this. Out of respect and a desire for an outcome palatable to everyone, I am removing the original conclusion I posted here, with the hope that my friends are right-- I was wrong, and I don't have to replace what was here...

Posted by Doug at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Update 1

In today's Citizen there is an update to the Code of Ethics. It seemingly has been put away for a while.

It also relates that Joe Hoffman showed up, gave a bit of history, and disputed that the Selectmen can put them into place on their own:

Prior to this, recent selectman candidate Joseph Hoffman brought a bit of information on the subject of these ethical codes to the attention of the board.

Hoffman pointed out that at the 1996 town meeting a petition Warrant Article, Article 10, was presented to the town to enact a very similar code of ethics. The measure was later defeated but this did not negate point Hoffman had to make.

Hoffman took issue with published comments by Town Administrator Evans Juris that because the new Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct are considered policy issues they could be approved by selectmen.

Hoffman said that codes would require a public hearing and might even need to be submitted to voters.

Since it didn't state it in the article, I bet the RSA that he brought forward is the one at the bottom of the post - RSA 31:39-a that states that the Legislative body can implement this....and does not mention the Executive branch being able to do so. 

============== 

Even the best of intentions can go awry and run afoul of "stuff".  I am hoping that this is one of those cases.... 

And I thought I was verbose at times.  For once, I think I can say something shorter and faster:

Obey the laws (always),do the right thing (always), and

be nice (at least the vast majority of the time).

I don't think that Gilford needs this overwritten and overbearing Code of Ethics.  Yes, there may be some problems in a few cases - but those should be able to be dealt with as single cases and not running to define exact cases and exact solution.  By overwritten, I believe that it tries to go down the path of legislating behavior, with the adding problem of who gets to determine the yea and nay of that behavior - which can be very dangerous if the wrong person is in charge or is of the opposite political persuasion and wishes to take advantage of that.  Effectively, this is like Mr. Dormody's CoE writ large and on steroids.  By overbearing, it may be better put as overreaching - this is an instrument not of the Selectmen's doing, but created by the Town's professional staff by does require the buy-in and approval of the Selectmen.  It assumes that  the Selectmen, as the Executive  branch, has the authority (as written) to determine behavior of all boards and commissions in Town both to determine stated behavior goals and remedies (such as removal from such boards and commissions) when the accused are found guilty.

Problem is, according to State RSAs, they do not have such authority over the independent Boards in Town - the Budget Committee and the School Board.  I'm no lawyer and am only fundamentally acquainted with the RSAs, but this has as much chance in court if challenged as this guy does long term  in our localized global warming temps.

Now, I was told verbally and again in an email that the professional staff has been working on this for a quite some time.  I do have to wonder about that, when I google just a few phrases from the below CoE and start getting hits on other places that have the same thing?  I have no problem with reusing usable and applicable stuff, but I have a hard time with the phrase:

Here are the draft versions of the proposed codes.  We have been working on them for quite a while

"quite a while" when I can see that this document is not much more than a screen scrape.  Especially if you go to the end of the document and see that even a screen scrape was not done correctly - it helps to get the name of our Town right. 

Besides, why would we want a Code of Ethics taken almost literally word for word from another City?  One that is has a population of 130,000, awash in money from Silicon Valley, and is facing slews of problems that just don't apply here in our small village?

Anyways, time for the actual text of the proposed CoE - along with commentary!

For Public Officials of the Town of Gilford
Adopted by the Gilford Board of Selectmen

Preamble

The citizens and businesses of Gilford are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government which has earned the public's full confidence for integrity. The effective functioning of democratic government therefore requires that:

• Public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operations of government;
• Public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions;
• Public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and
• Public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.

To this end, the Gilford Board of Selectmen has adopted a Code of Ethics for members of the Board of Selectmen and of the Town's  other boards and commissions to assure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation.

Read the Preamble....effectively, this description of how government should work, via elected and appointed, is Patriotism, Mom, and Apple Pie.  Who wants, or could be, against this?  The problem is not with the Preamble but how it implemented. 

Not only that, but keep the following in mind:

• Does this follow the RSAs of New Hampshire?
• Does this fit the Town of Gilford?
• Does the Board of Selectmen have the authority to put this on ALL boards / commissions in Town?
  

Also and again, if you don't like this version presented here of the 'Grok, go to this link - read it word for word there....except it is for the CITY of Sunnyvale, CA (and if you are not familiar with it, it is the center of high tech land in Silicon Valley - you can smell the money).

What does this summarize to?  Be nice.....follow the law.  Anything else is an attempt to legislate behavior.

1. Act in the Public Interest

Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, members will work for the common good of the people of Gilford and not for any private or personal interest, and they will assure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before the Selectmen, boards and commissions.

As with the "shot down" Advisory Budget Committee, who will be in charge?  My example then was if the Selectmen had a beef with the School Board, it could have been stacked that Advisory BudComm against the SB and voted down anything they wanted.  Just because it is politics.  Ditto over the issue of civility - I would not want someone of the opposite view with and idea of "winning at any cost" sitting in judgement of my behavior. 

The same is here - the fundamental problem is not wanting eithical behavior; rather, who enforces it and how?  And who has that legal authority?

Continue reading "Code of Ethics - redeux" »

Posted by Skip at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As most of you know, the Board of Selectmen ("BOS") have changed the COLA policy that was part of the Town payroll policy.  For those not familiar with the term (especially since it dropped out of usage in the private sector quite some time ago), COLA stands for Cost Of Living Adjustment.  In general terms, this was a percentage (in Gilford's case, was set by BOS policy) that is automatically applied to all Town employees annual or hourly wage.

This has now been dropped and a Performance Based Increase (think merit) policy has been put into place - like almost all private sector firms. 

Well, this is a "sea change" in policy, and has been accompanied by no small amount of Press and comment.  Given that the local Press has quoted certain members of the BOS, I feel that it is now OK for others to do the same.

For instance, let's take the Tuesday edition (11/21/06) of the Daily Sun - the article was labeled

"Selectmen tell employees COLA had to go to ward off deeper cuts".

The starting quote:

"Noting that the Budget Committee had been concerned abou the COLA for a couple of years, he disclosed that "we've been working on this for a while, but the Budget Committee moved up its time table." - Dennis Doten, Chairman

Let's see if I have this straight - if this has been in the works for a couple of years - why has it taken that long for the BOS to do something?  Was this a case of "let's wait them out and maybe nothing will come of it?".  Or was it a calculus that the Budget Committee wouldn't ever have the will to look at the salaries and do something about them due to the makeup of the members - and the BOS got caught flatfooted and outflanked?

After all, since the BOS could have, at any time, change the policy, why not until now?

Continue reading "Ruminations on Selectmen utterances in the Press" »

Posted by Skip at 08:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update 1

 I like playing with numbers, and I would be dishonest if I did not show the table that is now at the bottom of this link.  The percentages are computed differently, with a different result for the number of Positions within 10% of max and 15% of max.

I had originally done just a quick percentage of Actual / Max (which has validity).  Now, I tried:

Now, I actually disect the range span (how big is the Salary Range) and normalize the Actual from two ways

• Subtract the Minimum from the Actual, use that number determine resulting percentage using the Range Span
• Subtract the Actual from the Max, use that number to determine the resulting percentage using the Range Span

Some may say that this is a more valid approach - my take is that either way, there is still a structural problem with Wages.  I will repeat this at the bottom with the actual table.

-Skip 

====================================== 

WARNING - long post, but hopefully this is done is a silly way that matches the silly season we're in and the silliness in which I intend.  Just make sure you stub your toes on the FACTS in order to note them.....and I'll point out those things that aren't.... 

After all, if something is issued out to the Web, it is fair game in the blogosphere to, ahem, comment on it. 

It figures, doesn't it?  It is the si